6 ms·

The US's main strategy is to dominate the battlefield and achieve the objective as fast as possible using technology and overwhelming firepower. So yes, they co

The US's main strategy is to dominate the battlefield and achieve the objective as fast as possible using technology and overwhelming firepower. So yes, they could and did win the "hot" stages where they were able to deploy all they have. But when the fight dragged out, as it has always done and absolutely will be in a peer or near peer conflict, the effectiveness of the US military drops like a rock. It is here that I question what is the point of all the expensive toys and the trillion dollars budget.

rich_sasha 2y ago
True, but also as these wars have dragged out, they have turned to counter-insurgency. Are you saying the US would also do badly at a dragged out "conventional" conflict?
- tomohelix 2y ago
  Yes, very likely. The US has no means to rapidly switch into wartime production. It is woefully inadequate when you realize that there is only one factory making tanks and it almost got shutdown. Even Russia is out producing the US. China would absolutely embarrass the US if it comes to sustained conflict and supply chain. And the US military is still stuck in the past in term of strategy for all out conflicts. A bunch of drones scared the entire nation the last few days and the army literally has no effective means to immediately response or track them. Meanwhile, billions are poured into aircraft carriers, all of which are easy targets for mass drone strikes or an ICBM attack. The US has no way to recover even a single carrier loss. There is simply no time or material to build them faster. Yet they are still the backbone of the US force. A bone that is getting more and more vulnerable every day.
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    I'm not sure how you can deduce this. All these previous wars were definitely not cases like this. There was no shortage of kit or firepower. It was rather that the US didn't know how to fight a counter-insurgency. That is a strategic failure, but seems to tell you nothing about matching up to Russia or China. Industrial production, hmm, maybe. I guess its hard for anyone to compare to China, and I really hope we never live to find out. But Russia is no great comparison point. US is certainly out producing Russia in terms of aircraft and lots of ammunition types, so much so that the small part that makes it to Ukraine is just-about a match for what Russia produces and imports in a wartime economy, with nothing diverted to reserves. And why do you conclude the US couldn't ramp it up? It hasn't tried for many decades, I guess since Vietnam. My impression, if anything, is the opposite. It has plenty of spare capital which could be put to that use, should the political will arise. As for broader US strategy and carriers being easy targets for ICBMs or drones, I would think this is speculation at this point. Until there is a hot war, it's so hard to know. And with 11 carrier groups, the US can afford to lose a lot of them and still have substantially more than the next opponent. Russia lost many ships to Ukraine drones, but in incomparable scenarios, such as a lone cruiser with its air defences unmanned, pretty close to the coast. I think that's hard to compare to how a carrier group might fare hundreds of miles offshore.
    - tomohelix 2y ago
      There were definitely a lack of funding justification as the previous wars dragged on. Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions of dollar each, against tiny forces. The US could hang on for as long as it did simply because of the massive budget discrepancy to their enemies. But eventually had to withdraw/surrender when it was obvious they couldn't win. Where did this massive budget go to? There is one tank factory, 7 major shipyards, and about 250 aircrafts made per year. Except aircraft, China military production dwarfs the US in everything else. Even Russia is producing more ammunition than the US can. Just to be clear, Ukraine is receiving aid from the entire Western hemisphere, not just the US. At the start of Ukraine conflict, the US made 28K artillery shells per month, and is really struggling to ramp up to 50K in the next few years. Meanwhile, Russia is making over 200K. Just that alone should raise alarms about how pathetic the US manufacturing base has become compared to its adversaries. Call it my opinion but when an army become overreliant on high tech but with precious few numbers that they can't replace easily, against a new paradigm in war where disposable mass strikes, i.e. drones, is becoming dominant, it is clear who is losing. Japan lost exactly this way in the Pacific to the US. The US military is now optimized for cost and profit, like everything else here. Lawyers and businessmen are taking charge, not engineers and scientists. Worse, they are considered a cost to be cut.
      - soderfoo 2y ago
        > But eventually had to withdraw/surrender when it was obvious they couldn't win. In fairness, the US trained the Afghan military, and then pulled out. The Afghan army folded like a cheap suit, showing the US so objective to stand up a national army failed.
      - baybal2 2y ago
        [dead]

rich_sasha 2y ago

True, but also as these wars have dragged out, they have turned to counter-insurgency. Are you saying the US would also do badly at a dragged out "conventional" conflict?

tomohelix 2y ago
Yes, very likely. The US has no means to rapidly switch into wartime production. It is woefully inadequate when you realize that there is only one factory making tanks and it almost got shutdown. Even Russia is out producing the US. China would absolutely embarrass the US if it comes to sustained conflict and supply chain. And the US military is still stuck in the past in term of strategy for all out conflicts. A bunch of drones scared the entire nation the last few days and the army literally has no effective means to immediately response or track them. Meanwhile, billions are poured into aircraft carriers, all of which are easy targets for mass drone strikes or an ICBM attack. The US has no way to recover even a single carrier loss. There is simply no time or material to build them faster. Yet they are still the backbone of the US force. A bone that is getting more and more vulnerable every day.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  I'm not sure how you can deduce this. All these previous wars were definitely not cases like this. There was no shortage of kit or firepower. It was rather that the US didn't know how to fight a counter-insurgency. That is a strategic failure, but seems to tell you nothing about matching up to Russia or China. Industrial production, hmm, maybe. I guess its hard for anyone to compare to China, and I really hope we never live to find out. But Russia is no great comparison point. US is certainly out producing Russia in terms of aircraft and lots of ammunition types, so much so that the small part that makes it to Ukraine is just-about a match for what Russia produces and imports in a wartime economy, with nothing diverted to reserves. And why do you conclude the US couldn't ramp it up? It hasn't tried for many decades, I guess since Vietnam. My impression, if anything, is the opposite. It has plenty of spare capital which could be put to that use, should the political will arise. As for broader US strategy and carriers being easy targets for ICBMs or drones, I would think this is speculation at this point. Until there is a hot war, it's so hard to know. And with 11 carrier groups, the US can afford to lose a lot of them and still have substantially more than the next opponent. Russia lost many ships to Ukraine drones, but in incomparable scenarios, such as a lone cruiser with its air defences unmanned, pretty close to the coast. I think that's hard to compare to how a carrier group might fare hundreds of miles offshore.
  - tomohelix 2y ago
    There were definitely a lack of funding justification as the previous wars dragged on. Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions of dollar each, against tiny forces. The US could hang on for as long as it did simply because of the massive budget discrepancy to their enemies. But eventually had to withdraw/surrender when it was obvious they couldn't win. Where did this massive budget go to? There is one tank factory, 7 major shipyards, and about 250 aircrafts made per year. Except aircraft, China military production dwarfs the US in everything else. Even Russia is producing more ammunition than the US can. Just to be clear, Ukraine is receiving aid from the entire Western hemisphere, not just the US. At the start of Ukraine conflict, the US made 28K artillery shells per month, and is really struggling to ramp up to 50K in the next few years. Meanwhile, Russia is making over 200K. Just that alone should raise alarms about how pathetic the US manufacturing base has become compared to its adversaries. Call it my opinion but when an army become overreliant on high tech but with precious few numbers that they can't replace easily, against a new paradigm in war where disposable mass strikes, i.e. drones, is becoming dominant, it is clear who is losing. Japan lost exactly this way in the Pacific to the US. The US military is now optimized for cost and profit, like everything else here. Lawyers and businessmen are taking charge, not engineers and scientists. Worse, they are considered a cost to be cut.
    - soderfoo 2y ago
      > But eventually had to withdraw/surrender when it was obvious they couldn't win. In fairness, the US trained the Afghan military, and then pulled out. The Afghan army folded like a cheap suit, showing the US so objective to stand up a national army failed.
    - baybal2 2y ago
      [dead]